I disagree -- the research going on is dabbling. I see no serious effort being made. You can't give it a year -- that's what's going on -- you get a year to see results -- that's not chemistry making you her bitch, that's people not giving a sh!t. Throwing a couple hundred thousand here and there to see if anyone has a quick promising result isn't sincere effort -- it's actually a big waste of money. Anyhow -- like you said, you're not a scientist and you're not equipped to think outside of the existing layman's paradigm. (There must be some sort of Godwin's Law when people bring up cold fusion in a renewable energy discussion)
I'm not trying to take away your jade here but it's kind of stating the obvious that there won't be any serious push for alternative energy sources as long as there's money to be made in fossil fuels. I think my daughter generation will take it more seriously
and making people richer or poorer? We're getting wealthier -- guess it's my turn to wax all jaded now. I'll spare us I'll just say money does not lead to social or technological advancement. Technological advancement in fact leads to social advancement and more money for everyone.
World investment in renewables last year was $244 billion, and I'm not sure whether that includes both government and private spending. Under no definition is that dabbling.
Otherwise I'm calling a reverse Godwin's law on you saying when you're invoking Godwin's law you're deflecting.
Or I'm thinking of a Manhattan Project law, which means if you say we need a Manhattan Project for this or that you usually don't know what you're talking about. Or perhaps it should be the Tom Friedman rule.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk